CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Puma

A defendant's van caused an accident with an 18-wheel tractor-trailer, striking and killing a highway worker. Evidence showed the defendant's speech was slurred, and a blood test revealed cocaine, methadone, and opiates, impairing his ability to react normally. The Grand Jury indicted the defendant for manslaughter, reckless driving, and other charges. The lower court dismissed several counts in the indictment, specifically counts one, two, four, five, and six, retaining counts three, seven, and eight. The appellate court modified this decision, reinstating counts one (manslaughter in the second degree, reduced to criminally negligent homicide) and two (reckless driving) because the evidence was legally sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

Criminal LawManslaughterReckless DrivingDriving While Impaired by DrugsCriminally Negligent HomicideGrand Jury IndictmentAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceVehicle and Traffic LawPenal Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Monaco v. CIS Corp. (In Re CIS Corp.)

This adversary proceeding involved a former employee, Patrick R. Monaco, suing debtors CIS and Chapter 11 Trustee James P. Hassett for unpaid vacation pay and commissions. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on Counts Two and Three of Monaco's complaint. On Count Two, seeking commissions for two Bell South transactions, the court granted the Trustee's motion, finding Monaco was not entitled to these payments due to unfulfilled contractual approval conditions. On Count Three, Monaco sought liquidated damages and attorneys' fees under New York Labor Law for conceded unpaid commissions and vacation pay. The court granted Monaco's cross-motion for these amounts, ruling that the failure to pay the undisputed wages was willful. Pre-judgment interest was denied, but Monaco was awarded $6160 in commissions, $3000 in vacation pay, $2290 in attorneys' fees, and $2290 in liquidated damages.

CommissionsVacation PaySummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawWillful Wage Non-PaymentAttorneys' FeesLiquidated DamagesContract InterpretationBankruptcy Adversary ProceedingEmployee Termination
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Hinkein

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court of Columbia County, rendered on February 15, 2001, convicting her of three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of endangering the welfare of a child following a guilty plea. The defendant argued that the County Court erred in accepting her plea without first conducting a competency examination under CPL 730.20, given her history of manic depression. However, the Appellate Division found that the County Court did not abuse its discretion, citing correspondence from social workers indicating no mental status abnormalities and the defendant's capable responses during the plea colloquy. The appellate court also determined that the imposed sentence was neither harsh nor excessive, considering the defendant's criminal history and her use of a 12-year-old child as a drug courier. Consequently, the judgment of the County Court was affirmed.

Criminal sale of controlled substanceEndangering welfare of childGuilty pleaCompetency issueCPL 730.20Second felony offenderConcurrent sentenceManic depressionMental health assessmentAppellate review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Straker v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

Carl B. Straker, a former NYCTA train operator, challenged his termination following a mandatory drug test, alleging he was unable to provide a urine sample due to a medical condition. His amended complaint cited procedural due process violations (Count I), racial discrimination and conspiracy (Count II), misrepresentation by NYCTA (Count III), and disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act (Count IV) against NYCTA, plus a breach of fair representation (Count V) against the Transit Workers Union. The court dismissed Count I, dismissed Count II with leave to amend, denied dismissal for Counts III and IV while demanding a more definite statement for Count III, and denied TWU’s motion to dismiss Count V, reinterpreting it as a state law claim. Metropolitan Transit Authority, though named, was dismissed as a party due to non-existence.

Employment DiscriminationProcedural Due ProcessRacial DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRehabilitation ActConspiracyDuty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintDrug Testing
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Aleynikov

Sergey Aleynikov, a former Goldman Sachs & Co. employee, was indicted on three counts related to misappropriating computer source code for Goldman's high-frequency trading system. He moved to dismiss all counts, arguing the stolen source code did not meet statutory definitions of 'product' for trade secret theft (Count One) or 'goods' for interstate transportation of stolen property (Count Two), and that his computer access was authorized (Count Three). The court denied dismissal for Count One, holding Goldman's trading system was a 'product' produced for interstate commerce under the Economic Espionage Act, and for Count Two, finding the source code constituted 'goods' under the National Stolen Property Act due to its commercial value. However, the court granted dismissal for Count Three, ruling that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act does not criminalize an authorized employee's misuse or misappropriation of information to which they had permission to access, even if done with an improper purpose or in violation of company policy. Thus, the motion to dismiss was granted in part (Count Three) and denied in part (Counts One and Two).

Economic Espionage ActTheft of Trade SecretsComputer Fraud and Abuse ActNational Stolen Property ActHigh-frequency tradingSource code misappropriationComputer crimeIntellectual property theftStatutory interpretationMotion to dismiss
References
81
Case No. ADJ4639220 (MON 0324133)
Regular
Nov 03, 2014

ARMAND LA COUNT vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

In *La Count v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration. This action was taken due to the WCAB's belief that further study of the factual and legal issues was necessary for a just and reasoned decision. The Board granted reconsideration to allow sufficient opportunity to fully understand the case record and potentially conduct further proceedings. Consequently, all future filings are to be submitted in writing to the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not to district offices or via e-filing.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transit AuthorityPermissibly Self-InsuredDecision After ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionCommissioners
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Field v. Trump

The case is a putative class action concerning a leveraged buy-out of Pay 'n Save Corporation. The plaintiff alleged violations of federal securities laws, RICO, and state common law. Specifically, Count I claimed that an unlawful premium was paid to Stroum and Sloan during a tender offer, violating Section 14(d)(7) and Rule 10b-13. Count II alleged breach of fiduciary duty and non-disclosure under federal securities laws. Count III accused defendants of a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding no tender offer in effect for Count I, that Count II failed to state a federal securities claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and that Count III did not sufficiently allege a "pattern" of racketeering activity as the acts constituted a single, non-ongoing scheme. Pendent state law claims were dismissed, and leave to replead was denied.

Federal Securities LawsRICOLeveraged Buy-OutTender OfferClass ActionMotion to DismissRule 10b-13Williams ActBreach of Fiduciary DutyRacketeering Activity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Burdo

The defendant appealed a judgment from Clinton County Court convicting them of murder in the second degree, kidnapping in the first degree, and two counts of robbery in the first degree. The appeal raised two primary issues: audio-visual coverage of the defendant's arraignment, which violated Judiciary Law § 218, and the denial of challenges for cause during jury selection. The court found that while the arraignment coverage was a statutory violation, it did not warrant reversal per se as the claims of jury taint were unsubstantiated. However, the Appellate Division determined that the trial court erred in denying challenges for cause for two prospective jurors who failed to unequivocally state their ability to be impartial, despite expressing predispositions. As the defendant exhausted their peremptory challenges, this error mandated a new trial.

Criminal LawAppellate ProcedureJury SelectionChallenges for CauseVoir DireJudiciary LawAudio-Visual CoverageArraignmentFair TrialImpartial Jury
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2006

People v. Niver

The defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the fourth degree, welfare fraud in the fourth degree, and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, all stemming from her failure to report income while receiving public assistance benefits. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of her speedy trial motion, the legal sufficiency of the evidence for her convictions, particularly regarding the value of property wrongfully taken and intent to defraud, and several evidentiary rulings by the County Court. The court found no speedy trial violation, concluding that only 173 days were chargeable to the People. The court also determined that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the convictions, noting witness testimony on overpayment exceeding $1,000 and the defendant's failure to disclose workers' compensation income. The various evidentiary rulings, including those related to the Molineux application and business records, were upheld. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed.

Grand LarcenyWelfare FraudFalse Instrument for FilingSpeedy Trial ViolationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceIntent to DefraudEvidentiary RulingsMolineux ApplicationBusiness Records ExceptionCriminal Procedure Law
References
14
Case No. 07 Civ. 1358(DAB)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2009

Osberg v. Foot Locker, Inc.

Plaintiff Geoffrey Osberg filed a class action against Foot Locker, Inc. and its Retirement Plan, alleging violations of ERISA due to the 1996 conversion of the plan to a cash balance system. The complaint included claims for age discrimination, insufficient notice of benefit reduction, misleading summary plan descriptions (SPDs), and breach of fiduciary duties. Defendants moved to dismiss all counts, but the court denied dismissal on grounds of standing and statute of limitations for all claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss for age discrimination (Count One) and insufficient notice under the 1996 ERISA § 204(h) (Count Two), aligning with precedents that found cash balance plans not inherently age discriminatory and that the notice provided met the then-current requirements. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss regarding the misleading SPD (Count Three) and breach of fiduciary duty (Count Four), concluding that the SPD might have been insufficiently clear about the "wear-away" effect and benefit reductions, thereby supporting the breach of fiduciary duty claim.

ERISApension plancash balance planbenefit conversionage discriminationfiduciary dutysummary plan descriptionnotice requirementsmotion to dismissstatute of limitations
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 264 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational